I think that the 1 and a half games stuff is garbage. Sinfield has had plenty of decent games for England/GB, although he may not have been MOM in any of them.

he has been a part of the international scene consistently for 9 years.

I don't think he's a great of the game yet. Internationally I think he doesn't have the profile, but at club level he's done it all, including playing in 3 WCC games.

I'm sure most of the Aussie players will have an opinion on him, even if all the fans don't

I stand to be corrected too, but I'm sure I remember Hanley playing in at least one side that one a series against NZ. We need an international equivalent of tvoc. When Hanley was at his very best I was about 10, so my memory is a little uncertain. I'm still not sure Sinfield has had the same impact at international level as Hanley. He hasn't done much wrong, but I don't remember him being outstanding prior to this series. I just think to be a great of the game your international resume needs more substance than that.

Maybe you're right and it is unreasonable to expect trophies at international level for Eng/GB players, but I still think Sinfield needs to carry on what he's started this year for a bit longer to earn that tag.

I'm not trying to sell him short, I'm at least as big a Sinfield fan as anyone (bar those who luv im coz he iz well fit innit). If I had my way he'd have been knighted by now, and is probably edging his way ahead of the competition as my favourite ever Leeds player, I just think he has more to prove at international level yet. Plenty of time for him to do that.

That's true, and it is probably what has prevented him realising his potential at Test level thus far. If he stays in that role he may very well earn himself a claim on greatness. I hope to see him lead England in the same way he's lead Leeds over the last few years.

We won a series against NZ in 1989 but IIRC hanley was injured. We may have won a series in NZ in 1991 but again, IIRC he was injured. Then we won the series in 1993 but I don't think he played, Schoey was captain.

I probably do stand corrected then don't I?

I wouldn't concede quite so easily. That was all from my hazy memory.

Completely correct. But Hanley did actually win the Golden Boot didn't he? And would it be too bold to suggest that had Hanley not been injured for the series vs NZ in 89 and 91 that he would undoubtedly have been on the winning side?

<Loiner4Life mode on> BTW Schofield played in series winning GB sides on three occasions. Surely that makes him three times the player Sinfield was<Loiner4Life mode off>

Not too bold to suggest at all. But it doesn't alter the fact that success at international level is not the sole barometer to measure greatness and, perhaps, is one of the least important barometers when you consider just how great Hanley was and that he won nothing internationally.

That there is even an attempt to compare Sinfield with Hanley shows how high Sinfield is riding at the moment.

Hanley was afterall the greatest British player of his generation and highly regarded on both sides of the globe.

very unfair when they had an opportunity to play as guests that today's players don't have.

Even Hanley and Schofield didn't have the fortitude to go test themselves over there full time like Burgess, Ellis, Mathers, Morley, Reilly etc etc

I was not aware anyone was.

Quite. Which illustrates that results in an international career are not paramount to acheiveing status as a "great".

But they didn't need to since the season's didn't overlap.
Reilly's case (& let's not forget Stevo, Dave Bolton & others) is different because at that time he could earn more over there than over here.
So not really a fair comparison.
To suggest that either lacked to bottle is disingenuous & is a disservice to both Hanley & Schofield, both of whom acquitted themselves admirably when they played over there unlike (IMO) Sean Edwards.